Talk:Bactria: Difference between revisions
Pashtun786 (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
hi |
hi |
||
That is not true pashtuns formed part of the bactrian empire and pashtuns were long ago spread all across modern day afghanistan and pakistan. Also there is no such thing as persian in afghanistan [[User:Pashtun786|Pashtun786]] 00:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Pashtun786 |
|||
==Daxia = *Togara?== |
==Daxia = *Togara?== |
||
Revision as of 00:04, 20 May 2007
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bactria article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2 |
 | Central Asia Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | Iran Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Afghanistan Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Please see the notes I wrote under the Daxia (Ta-Hsia) discussion page Thanks. John Hill.
Comment moved from article
[[[[[Actually when this area was called Bactria there were no pashtuns living not even 500 km close to it.Bactria is a pure persian,dari,farsi,tajiki heritage and so the Avesta and the zoroastrian.The pure root of todays persian langauge is taken from ancient Bactria. The greatest parsian poets and writers were from Bactria. The history of the Pashtuns that are living around those area now adays goes back to 100 or 150 years ago. I request Mr Amanullah Ghilzai to research more and read some history books. He should try to write the real history. ]]]]]
Moved by Rich Farmbrough 09:02 23 August 2006 (GMT).
hi
That is not true pashtuns formed part of the bactrian empire and pashtuns were long ago spread all across modern day afghanistan and pakistan. Also there is no such thing as persian in afghanistan Pashtun786 00:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Pashtun786
Daxia = *Togara?
I have had a reminder from a correspondent recently that in the article: "The Yüeh-chih and their migrations." by K. Enoki, G. A. Koshelenko and Z. Haidary. HCCA Vol. II, (1994) p. 173, the claim is made that: "As 'Ta-hsia' is an exact transcription of 'Tochara' (which was the central part of the Bactrian kingdom), if the Yüeh-chih were the Tocharians, the conquest of Ta-hsia by the Yüeh-chih means the conquest of the country of Tochara by the Tocharians, which seems rather strange. The evidence of Szŭ-ma Ch'ien shows that Ta-hsia cannot be the Bactrian kingdom, but was the country of Tochara divided into small political units at the time of the Yüeh-chih invasion. In other words the Graeco-Bactrian kingdom had already been destroyed or divided when the Yüeh-chih arrived. Therefore,there is no need to accept the identification of the Tocharas with the Yüeh-chih . .. ."
Although I am inclined to dismiss this argument and accept the prevailing view that the Yuezhi = the Tochari - I would be very interested if anyone here would like to comment on it. Many thanks, John Hill 11:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)